4 ms·
Re-posting my comment on Math Professor Fighting Gerrymandering with Geometry | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?
by j_s 9y ago
Re-posting my comment on Math Professor Fighting Gerrymandering with Geometry | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713252 4 months ago:
[...] a need for expert witnesses who understand the mathematical concepts applicable to gerrymandering. To meet that need, she’s spearheaded the creation of a five-day summer program at Tufts [the first in a series of regional trainings] that aims to train mathematicians to do just that
[...] over 900 people have indicated their interest by signing up for a mailing list
http://tufts.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=3529c170e5d9b7aa8ab22ea62&id=a979bdf71d http://tufts.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=3529c170e5d9b7...
--
Quoting from the end of that article, calling out the "efficiency gap" as the spark for work towards a mathematical definition of "compactness" satisfying districting requirements in a way that is convincingly explainable as fair:
Recently there was a big media sensation in Wisconsin around something called the "efficiency gap." It was a new metric of partisan gerrymandering that, for the first time, a court said they liked. The way it was devised was that the people who created it, they went back and they read all of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s written decisions about measuring gerrymandering. By reading his words and by reading what he said he found convincing and less convincing, they designed a statistic to appeal to him.
- paulmd 9y agoTo rephrase this a little more concisely: SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues). There are 4 solid liberal votes and 4 solid conservative votes and Kennedy in the middle. Kennedy indicated in a ruling a few years ago that in theory he's uncomfortable with gerrymandering and might be open to striking them down, but apart from "I know it when I see it" he doesn't know a neutral/nonpartisan way to actually detect it. And "I know it when I see it" doesn't work well as a judicial test, there needs to be a bright-line somewhere that lower courts can apply. Well, a bunch of mathematicians heard that and said "challenge accepted" and have been working on mathematical models to quantify the level of gerrymandering. And now the court cases are working their way back up to SCOTUS, only with the academic models that Kennedy has indicated he wants. Now we get to find out whether Kennedy's interest in neutering gerrymandering actually goes as far as being willing to strike down a gerrymander. Because it's easy to talk the talk, but at the end of the day Kennedy is still conservative-ish and gerrymandering heavily benefits conservatives overall.
- manyoso 9y agoMy guess is Kennedy will punt and say there are two many models to choose from with no clear way to determine which one is best even though they are clearly better than what we have now.
- bluGill 9y agoTo a large extent the court should punt. Congress - as the ones who make the laws - should decide which model is used, not the courts. The job of the courts is only to say if any particular model congress decides on is fair enough.
- manyoso 9y agoSo you think the very people who unfairly have benefit from this partisan gerrymandering should be able to choose whether to continue it? Let me guess, you happen to politically side with the benefiting partisans?
- bluGill 9y agothe courts benefit too. Liberal justices looking to retire tend to wait for a liberal president, and vice versa conservative justices wait for a conservative president.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- burkaman 9y ago> SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues). I think this is a little bit misleading. Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous.
- pklausler 9y agoWhen unanimous, SCOTUS isn't turning.